CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1730 OF 2003 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 12, 2008
Ravinder Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. I.P.S.Doabia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
On an application moved by the prosecution, petitioner,
Ravinder Singh, resident of Nehru Nagar Colony, Police Station
Thana Hathras Gate, stand summoned to face prosecution for an
offence under Section 307 IPC alongwith his sister, Rajesh Kumari.
The allegation against Rajesh Kumari is that she had given the
powdered broken pieces of glasses by mixing in saffi medicine in
collusion with her brother, Ravinder Singh (present petitioner) to the
complainant. This was so mentioned in the complaint. Complainant,
Krishna Devi was examined as PW7 and she gave a statement,
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1730 OF 2003 :{ 2 }:
revealing that on 18.3.2000, Rajesh Kumari, on the asking and under
the influence and guidance of her brother, Ravinder Kumar, mixed
the powder of broken pieces of glasses in medicine saffi. It is on the
basis of this evidence that application was moved by the prosecution
for summoning Ravinder Singh as an additional accused for being
prosecuted with Rajesh Kumari for an offence under Section 307
IPC.
While opposing the prayer made by the prosecution, the
counsel for accused-Rajesh Kumari made reference to he
investigation done in this case and pleaded that no evidence was led
by the prosecution to indicate the manner of conspiracy being
alleged against Ravinder Singh, petitioner. The counsel justifiably
pleaded before the Court that on the basis of mere suspicion, a
person could not be summoned to face prosecution as an additional
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, the
defence counsel relied upon various judgments, including the case of
Michael Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, 2000 (2) RCR Criminal 75.
The Court, after considering the rival contentions and
taking in view the evidence found that case for summoning petitioner,
Ravinder Singh, was made out. The relevant observation of the Court
in this regard is that:-
“It appears from the statement of PW7 Krishna Devi that
the offence was committed after the conspiracy was
entered into between the present accused Rajesh Kumari
and Ravinder Singh who is not an accused in this case
and who should be tried together with present accused
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1730 OF 2003 :{ 3 }:
Rajesh Kumari.”
Ratio of law laid down in Michael Machado (supra) was
before the Court while deciding the application of the prosecution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held in this case that
basic requirement of invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that it should
appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the
enquiry that some other person who is not arraigned as an accused
in that case has committed an offence for which that person could be
tried together with the accused already arraigned. It was further held
that it is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt from the
evidence. In other word, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction
from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects firstly, that
the person has committed an offence and secondly that for such an
offence the other person as well can be tried alongwith already
arraigned accused.
Viewed in this background of the law as laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is to be seen if the evidence that has
been given can lead to reasonable satisfaction to the effect that the
petitioner has committed an offence and that he can be tried
alongwith the persons already arraigned as accused in this case.
No doubt, what is conferred under this Section on the
Court is a discretion and this discretion is to be exercised to achieve
criminal justice. It was also observed in Michael Machado’s case
(supra) that quality of evidence before the Court should be such a
type that a Court could even be hopeful that there was reasonable
prospect of newly added accused being convicted. It appears that
these aspects have apparently escaped notice of the Court while
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1730 OF 2003 :{ 4 }:
directing summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused.
Merely from the statement, which may make it appear that offence
was committed, would not be the standard, which the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has laid down in Michael Machado (supra). For
summoning an additional accused what is to be seen is whether the
evidence which has come on record would raise a reasonable
prospect of his conviction. This aspect apparently has escaped
notice of the Trial Court. The petitioner has been summoned merely
on the ground that it appears to the Court that conspiracy was
entered into between the petitioner and Rajesh Kumari. The valid
considerations of law for summoning the petitioner as an additional
accused were apparently not kept in view by the Trial Court.
The impugned order, as such, can not be sustained. The
same is set-aside. The case will go back to the Trial Court to see if
the evidence which has been produced before the Court would
satisfy the test and the standard laid down in Michael Machado
(supra) for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused. It is
made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits
and it will be entirely in the discretion of the Court to summon the
petitioner as an additional accused if it is satisfied that the standard
of evidence would be such which would meet the requirement laid
down in Michael Machado (supra). The prosecution would be
entitled to move another application in case some subsequent
evidence has come on record and the case is still in progress for
summoning the petitioner as an accused. Ofcourse, it is to be done
on the basis of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1730 OF 2003 :{ 5 }:
The petition is disposed of with the above observations.
November 12, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE